Archive for the ‘ ours ’ Category
Bittersweet, it is. Leaving Chicago.
Lots of good friends, and good times, and good laughs.
But then there were the winters, the hangovers, and the joblessness.
So that’s that.
As a farewell, we decided to stack all our stuff up in the windows of Fishbowl.
Enjoy.
Early poster from the ballet
“Three years ago Ben Huh visited a blog devoted to silly cat pictures – and saw vast potential…Sensing an Internet phenomenon, Mr. Huh solicited financing from investors and forked over $10,000 of his own savings to buy the Web site from the two Hawaiian bloggers who started it.”
Read the full article here.
Chicago Premiere Event
Saturday, May 1
Stay tuned for more details!
Be sure and stop by Fishbowl to see our latest installation:
“The Guardians: A Prospective”
New & not-so-new work by Kansas City artist, Bill Hobson
So we’re not in the habit of using this blog as a place to update on personal information, but we did want to announce that we will be leaving Chicago at the end of the summer. There are lots of events planned for Fishbowl starting with a video installation opening on April 2 at 7pm. If you’re in the neighborhood stop by and say hello! Also check out the gallery’s page for updated information on upcoming events.
We’re currently developing 2 classes looking at art & science – one a materials and process-based chemistry class, the other a historical survey and examination of the scientific method. Pretty great stuff. Ruby will also be teaching the History & Analysis of Graphic Design starting in April.
We just got word that we’ll be presenting a performative talk at PSi #16 Performing Publics in Toronto, 9-13 June 2010.
The talk will focus on our life in the Fishbowl – if you’re up north, hope to see you there!
A lot of our work lately has been involved with looking at the human:digital interface. Is that the same as the human:machine interface? What are the differences that I am interested in exploring? How does our work in Performing the Self (the avatar as the real), as well as our work with the digital (trying to perfect our way of speaking to a camera by interviewing ourselves, editing, memorizing and repeating), etc. open up these ideas – but on the other side of the machine equation?
“31. If an artist uses the same form in a group of works, and changes the material, one would assume the artist’s concept involved the material.”
What does it mean to re-perform a drawing? Even if the original drawing was life-sized? How does involving the body – as a viewer, as opposed to a producer – change the experience with the artwork as object?
There is a sort of object-producer dichotomy in the drawing that is absent when we perform the action. Our bodies are object. Object twice-removed…When we do reperformances, we don’t claim authorship at all. We break free from the notion of authorship, so in a very real sense, Longo is still the author; we’re just allowing him to use our material, to use us as material.
Why Longo?
We were looking for: A portrait. A couple. An object that captured the idea of identity wrapped up in the exterior. Something to model Cash & Ruby on. Something that was already present in – already visually present in the art world – while at the same time, related to our cultural consciousness. Our awareness of ourselves during the 1980s in America. A man and a woman wearing business suits. Money. The notion of surface. Radical surface. A young Caucasian man and woman, well-dressed, attractive.
Transporting ourselves from the analog to the digital. Flattening everything. Giving it all the same value. That’s what happens with the composite. We don’t put ourselves into any sort of scene: it’s a completely clean, neutral space, a non-space, digital space. The original piece of work has all sorts of potential. Our reperformance is just one type of actualization that is available for Robert Longo’s original drawing.
This video by Circlesquare takes it to the next level.
